Today, the logical analysis is not only sharp but also steady due to experimental verification of every concept. The receiving nature of the people is quite stable due to the scientific analysis. People are not fast in applying the theoretical tautology to arrive at hasty conclusions. In view of the stability of the phase of intelligence, the projection of the real unimaginable nature of God will not face the danger of non-existence. The scientist may not believe any miracle and may say that nothing is unimaginable. But the scientist must accept the unimaginable boundary of the universe.

The scientist may argue like this:- “When the universe is imaginable made of imaginable cosmic energy as the fundamental cause, how can you say that the boundary of the universe is unimaginable? Just like the ocean is water, the boundary of the ocean must be also be the same water. Hence, the boundary of the imaginable universe must be also imaginable”. This type of argument is not acceptable if you analyze the subtle point of the boundary. When you reach the edge of the ocean and stand on it, you must find water on one side and the land, which is not water on the other side. The knowledge of both water and land is necessary to fix the boundary of the ocean. Land is not water. If land is also water, then the boundary of the ocean is not achieved. Similarly, when you reach the boundary of the imaginable universe, you must perceive the imaginable nature of the universe on one side and the unimaginable nature on the other side. If the unimaginable nature is also imaginable, then the boundary of imaginable nature is not achieved.

When the unimaginable nature cannot be imagined by your intelligence, it means you have never reached the boundary of the imaginable universe. Unless you perceive both imaginable and unimaginable natures, the boundary of the imaginable nature is not achieved. Hence the boundary of the universe is always unimaginable from the other side. Some scientists say that the diameter of the universe is 200 billion light years.

Another scientist laughed at this by asking that if he travels all this diameter and reach the compound wall of universe, what is present beyond such compound wall? One scientist says that the universe is constantly expanding! This is again a laughable concept since it finally means that you can never achieve the boundary of the universe. Hence, by all means the scientist has to accept the existence of the unimaginable entity, which is the other side of the boundary of the universe. It is not the boundary if the other side is not achieved. The scientist has stable and steady intelligence to realize the truth in this argument unlike a theoretical ancient tautologist. The unimaginable item, which is beyond the boundary of this imaginable universe is called as God.

When this universe is projected from God, you will touch God on reaching the edge of the universe. You can never touch God since He is unimaginable. It means that you can never reach the boundary of this universe. Today this fundamental concept is revealed due to confidence on the stable and steady analytical faculty of real scientists. Ofcourse, foolish conservative scientists also exist even today in small number and this is inevitable at any time. Moreover, today there is lot of demand for the revelation of this basic concept in view of the violent terrorism that arose from the differences between the religions.

Oh those foolish scientists just have no imagination, they just reject the unimaginable. Imagine that!

After all imagination is more powerful than facts which tend to confuse our imaginations. Scientists are weighed down with all that fact garbage. Therefore they’ll never reach the boundary of the universe where god dwells. True knowledge lies within the imagination of those who “know” god. It’s a fact that god exists and no mere scientist is going to shake my unwaivering knowledge of what lies beyond the event horizon.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

I suspect that what we can ever know will always be minuscule compared to what we can imagine. But to call what we cannot know or cannot imagine God, is, itself, an act of imagination, therefore, the asserted definition of God: “The unimaginable item, which is beyond the boundary of this imaginable universe is called as God.” is incoherent.

Calling the unknowable or unimaginable God, simply serves to provide a false sense of knowing for those who are so desperate to know, that they will make something up, or believe something that someone else has made up.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

the “boundry” of the universe? Do you mean the boundry of the multiverse? The boundaries of the brane theory? Where exactly does the boundary lie? And what will happen to god when we have finally reached the “limits” of this supposed boundary;where will god have to hide then? As he is intangible when we do reach the limits or whatever there is will god be invisible like santa claus at the North pole? this seems to be the old “god of the gaps” argument merely expanded.

My thoughts exactly. In this case, he is billions of light years away….. he keeps getting pushed further and further away, but that’s what this argument relies on no? He is always beyond the borders of our understanding, which makes it a matter of faith. So why use a physical measurement in the first place? Sigh.

Signature

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Again, I don’t get how it is valid to call what we don’t know or can’t imagine God. Through the course of human history, much of what was unknown, at the time, was attributed to God. Then when we knew more, we attributed it to natural processes. So time after time, in what was explained only by a concept of God, the concept of God became unnecessary to the explanation.

So why is it valid, in light of this repeated experience of learning, to say that what we don’t know or can’t imagine is God?

IMO, it is only valid to say that what we don’t know is what we don’t know, yet. What we can’t imagine is what we can’t imagine, yet.

Signature

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.